'No doubt' Syria used chemical arms, says US Vice-President Joe Biden

[Jingthing]

In modern American history, presidents don't need the approval of congress about executive war actions. Democrats and republicans. To demonize Obama specifically about this is just silliness.

[baboon]

Reading these Syria threads, the message is clear from most TV members of both wings of politics - NO! THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT!

Let Obama, Cameron, 'slugger' Hague et al throw themselves into battle first.

[baboon]

is death by gas any worse than death by bullets or bombs? Why should there be military retribution for chemical death, but not other deaths ? Better to spend the millions on caring for the refugees. Help some people, rather than killing a few more ? So, Assad is dead, what happens after ?

Exactly.

[NeverSure]

OK, as much as I dislike Obama, and as much as I'm opposed to striking Syria, here's what I think are the issues, and his dilemma.

1. About a year ago, referring to Syria, Obama said that using chemical weapons would be crossing a red line. How does he maintain credibility with more dangerous countries like Iran if he appears to be a paper tiger?

2. If he lets Syria get away with manufacturing and using chemical weapons, how else does he keep them from falling into the hands of even worse world wide terrorists? Regardless of who used the weapons, wouldn't it be Syria that made them, and therefore they may have already fallen into the hands of terrorists?

3. The American people are against a strike on Syria. Does he just do it anyway - say a couple of days of cruise missile strikes that aren't designed to take out Assad, but rather send a message while damaging a lot of Syria's military? You can bet the US knows where Syria manufactures that poison.

4. If it was just a couple of days of strikes, would the American people soon get over it in time for elections?

5. Could he get the job done quickly, with no loss of American lives? Could it be more of a warning to the rest of the world rather than a real war?

Can he back down? I'm scratching my head on this one.

Edited August 28, 2013 by NeverSure

[hawker9000]

Here we go again, throwing our boys into wars that aren't ours. But this time the XXXXwits in charge are going to tell our boys to go into Syria to protect the rebels who in this case include Hezbollah.

Duh.

Yeap - Obama drew his line in the sand, knows his credibility is in tatters, and so here we go. Make no mistake. This is as much about Obama as it is about Syria.

[Jingthing]

This has nothing to do with U.S. elections.

[Loptr]

They also better had a strategy, in particular an exit strategy, this time round.

Agreed.

Obama's a prudent commander in chief of the military who is much more careful and considerate of U.S. military personnel and assets than Bush or Bush ever were, Reagan too.

The U.S. barely set foot on the ground in Libya and then was gone like the wind. I think that was a good exit strategy and the model to follow, although no U.S. ground forces will be used in Syria.

The U.S. population doesn't want another war and Obama knows that. Obama campaigned in 2008 to get out of Iraq etc. The U.S. isn't going to be participating in this for very long, that's for sure.

V.P Biden is no warhawk either.

And if Syria or Iran starts pounding away at Israel, what then for the USA?

You're kidding, right? That IS the plan.

[Jingthing]

Too bad Obama didn't act sooner.

Yes I know many of you will be horrified by this. Too bad. America's powerful role in the world isn't over yet and many of us think that's a GOOD THING overall. Yes there have been big mistakes, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, but that shouldn't castrate any current or future U.S. president.

This viewpoint from an American LIBERAL mirrors my view:

What does the world look like when people begin to doubt the credibility of U.S. power? Unfortunately, we’re finding that out in Syria and other nations where leaders have concluded they can defy a war-weary United States without paying a price.
Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit. It has become obvious in recent weeks that President Obama, whose restrained and realistic foreign policy I generally admire, needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. “red line.” Otherwise, the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve.

A second example of the dangerous opportunism that Obama has unintentionally fostered is that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He’s a pugnacious former KGB officer who seems determined to take advantage of our reasonable, reticent president and the fatigued nation he represents. For a while, Putin’s chip on the shoulder was merely annoying. But inturning a blind eye to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the Russian leader is undermining one of the precepts of the global political order.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-syria-us-credibility-is-at-stake/2013/08/28/54e8bc50-0ffd-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

Edited August 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[Dancealot]

OK, as much as I dislike Obama, and as much as I'm opposed to striking Syria, here's what I think are the issues, and his dilemma.

1. About a year ago, referring to Syria, Obama said that using chemical weapons would be crossing a red line. How does he maintain credibility with more dangerous countries like Iran if he appears to be a paper tiger?

2. If he lets Syria get away with manufacturing and using chemical weapons, how else does he keep them from falling into the hands of even worse world wide terrorists? Regardless of who used the weapons, wouldn't it be Syria that made them, and therefore they may have already fallen into the hands of terrorists?

3. The American people are against a strike on Syria. Does he just do it anyway - say a couple of days of cruise missile strikes that aren't designed to take out Assad, but rather send a message while damaging a lot of Syria's military? You can bet the US knows where Syria manufactures that poison.

4. If it was just a couple of days of strikes, would the American people soon get over it in time for elections?

5. Could he get the job done quickly, with no loss of American lives? Could it be more of a warning to the rest of the world rather than a real war?

Can he back down? I'm scratching my head on this one.

The US will strike if there will be a profit to be gained...

A quick job is being advertised now on western media.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-west-acting-muslim-world-monkey-grenade-143943021.html

[NeverSure]

This has nothing to do with U.S. elections.

Of course. Everyone knows that politicians never consider the political ramifications of what they are considering doing.

[sustento]

I don't have a problem with involvement in this little conflict if it has a goal. The goal should be to find and take out or neutralize those chemical weapons. Once done, they should be out of there. If the goal is punishment, then drop a few strategically placed bombs and be out of there.

Syria is not going to become a democracy and it is too fractured to be easily repaired by anyone.

No Islamic state is ever going to become a democracy!!

Turkey already is a democracy.

[Jingthing]

I don't have a problem with involvement in this little conflict if it has a goal. The goal should be to find and take out or neutralize those chemical weapons. Once done, they should be out of there. If the goal is punishment, then drop a few strategically placed bombs and be out of there.

Syria is not going to become a democracy and it is too fractured to be easily repaired by anyone.

No Islamic state is ever going to become a democracy!!

Turkey already is a democracy.

Turkey is not an Islamic state.

It is now in danger of becoming one.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[mopar71]

I wouldn't put it past the Islamists using chemical weapons on their own people, then blaming Assad in an attempt to get the USA to take the gov't out for them. It isn't much different from the common strategy in the region of attacking from residential areas or schools so that any counter-attack will have civilian deaths which can be used as propaganda.

[hawker9000]

I wouldn't put it past the Islamists using chemical weapons on their own people, then blaming Assad in an attempt to get the USA to take the gov't out for them. It isn't much different from the common strategy in the region of attacking from residential areas or schools so that any counter-attack will have civilian deaths which can be used as propaganda.

Certainly no putting it past muslim extremists, by ANY means (!), but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that, that I've so far heard at least, in this case (except perhaps Assad's own statements, but his credibility is even worse than Obama's, if that's possible).

[Mosha]

No UK involvement until a vote in parliament, after complaints from opposition and rebel MPs

[snarky66]

We need the left wing of the liberal party to get up in arms & tell obama not to start any more wars anywhere for any reason.

That's after regime change in Libya & Egypt.

Enough nation building

Edited August 28, 2013 by snarky66

[Exsexyman]

Proof:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

not proof at all, unless the US releases the transcript of the phone call. Which we all know they won't! This chemical attack, ( if there was one), came from the 'rebels', why on earth would Assad do this on the day that UN inspectors arrived in Syria, when he is winning the war against the Islamic insurgents, (Al Qaeda)? Knowing that this would be the green light for the US to attack him? He is not crazy. The US have been supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria for their own geo political interests. Looking at the comments in the Western media today, ( the ones that allow comments), it is quite clear that the vast majority of citizens in the West have seen through this BS, and are totally against any attack on Syria. But that will make no difference of course, politicians in the US and The UK have nothing but contempt for the electorate in their countries. By the way, you should get your facts right, this fantasy conversation was not overheard by US intelligence services, it was passed on to the US by Israeli intelligence, who we all know are completely impartial in these matters! The thing that puzzles me Jingthing, is why do you want the people of Syria, who at the moment are free to practice whichever religion they choose, women have equal rights, no discrimination of gay people, female children have equal education rights as male children etc, to be subjected to Sharia law, which is what will happen if Assad is overthrown, and replaced with the Islamic fundamentalists just because it suits The US geopolitical interests? Don't you think that is a wee bit selfish? Just so that Obama can save face, because he made a stupid, naive statement about "red lines being crossed"? Even though no "red lines" were apparently crossed when the Western backed Islamic insurgents were caught 'bang to rights' by UN inspectors on at least two occasions with chemical weapons? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Or is it a case of you burying your head in the sand, Obama and America can do no wrong? My country, right or wrong?

Has anybody thought to ask the people of Syria if they want The US to let fly with cruise missiles in order to liberate them? Of course not. Whether you like it or not the majority of ordinary citizens of Syria support the Assad government in his fight against the country being over run by Islamic fundamentalists, Al Qaeda, and the like, just look at the state of Libya now, a relatively prosperous and stable country now reduced to a basket case, with armed Islamists running amok , Christians and ethnic minorities being slaughtered, thanks to our intervention. After two years of Western backed insurgency trying to overthrow his government,with all the money and resources they have been given, there is no way Assad would still be in control unless the majority of the Syrian public supported him. After having lived in a secular society do you really believe they want to be ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, Sharia Law etc, with all that entails? Of course they don't, who would? Anyone with any nous can see this for what it is, it is all about destabilizing Syria, before the West move on to the greater prize, ie, Iran. The really shameful thing is that despite 9 -11, the tube bombings in London, the cold blooded murder of Lee Rigby, etc etc, the West is quite prepared to align themselves with the groups responsible for these atrocities in pursuit of this goal. The hypocrisy makes me, and i suspect many other like minded people, sick to my stomach.

[chooka]

No UK involvement until a vote in parliament, after complaints from opposition and rebel MPs

The U.S won't get much backing from Australia either at the moment with an election next week .

[Publicus]

Proof:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

not proof at all, unless the US releases the transcript of the phone call. Which we all know they won't! This chemical attack, ( if there was one), came from the 'rebels', why on earth would Assad do this on the day that UN inspectors arrived in Syria, when he is winning the war against the Islamic insurgents, (Al Qaeda)? Knowing that this would be the green light for the US to attack him? He is not crazy. The US have been supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria for their own geo political interests. Looking at the comments in the Western media today, ( the ones that allow comments), it is quite clear that the vast majority of citizens in the West have seen through this BS, and are totally against any attack on Syria. But that will make no difference of course, politicians in the US and The UK have nothing but contempt for the electorate in their countries. By the way, you should get your facts right, this fantasy conversation was not overheard by US intelligence services, it was passed on to the US by Israeli intelligence, who we all know are completely impartial in these matters! The thing that puzzles me Jingthing, is why do you want the people of Syria, who at the moment are free to practice whichever religion they choose, women have equal rights, no discrimination of gay people, female children have equal education rights as male children etc, to be subjected to Sharia law, which is what will happen if Assad is overthrown, and replaced with the Islamic fundamentalists just because it suits The US geopolitical interests? Don't you think that is a wee bit selfish? Just so that Obama can save face, because he made a stupid, naive statement about "red lines being crossed"? Even though no "red lines" were apparently crossed when the Western backed Islamic insurgents were caught 'bang to rights' by UN inspectors on at least two occasions with chemical weapons? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Or is it a case of you burying your head in the sand, Obama and America can do no wrong? My country, right or wrong?

Has anybody thought to ask the people of Syria if they want The US to let fly with cruise missiles in order to liberate them? Of course not. Whether you like it or not the majority of ordinary citizens of Syria support the Assad government in his fight against the country being over run by Islamic fundamentalists, Al Qaeda, and the like, just look at the state of Libya now, a relatively prosperous and stable country now reduced to a basket case, with armed Islamists running amok , Christians and ethnic minorities being slaughtered, thanks to our intervention. After two years of Western backed insurgency trying to overthrow his government,with all the money and resources they have been given, there is no way Assad would still be in control unless the majority of the Syrian public supported him. After having lived in a secular society do you really believe they want to be ruled by Islamic fundamentalists, Sharia Law etc, with all that entails? Of course they don't, who would? Anyone with any nous can see this for what it is, it is all about destabilizing Syria, before the West move on to the greater prize, ie, Iran. The really shameful thing is that despite 9 -11, the tube bombings in London, the cold blooded murder of Lee Rigby, etc etc, the West is quite prepared to align themselves with the groups responsible for these atrocities in pursuit of this goal. The hypocrisy makes me, and i suspect many other like minded people, sick to my stomach.

100,000 dead Syrian civilians over the past 29 months are Islamic sharia law militants? That's not the situation. A rambling muddle doesn't help clarify the situation either.

The reality is that Assad and his group can't govern the country any more, haven't been able to govern the country for some time now. Isn't that obvious? Hasn't that been obvious for a significant period of time, in significant ways?

Let Syria divide into geographic sections based on religious sects, tribes, sectional interests and the like. The place can be peaceful again as a loose confederation in which each closed minded group can have its own space, as it were.

So Syria dissolves. No one in the West is going to miss Syria as a nation state, even less so as a one party nation state allied with Iran and Russia.

Let it balkanize so the different groups of people can be left to themselves.

Or some of Syria can incorporate into Turkey, some can incorporate into Iraq, some into Jordan etc. No one is going to miss a dissolved Syria except Iran and Russia.

The best outcome is that Syria disappears.

[Loptr]

Too bad Obama didn't act sooner.

Yes I know many of you will be horrified by this. Too bad. America's powerful role in the world isn't over yet and many of us think that's a GOOD THING overall. Yes there have been big mistakes, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, but that shouldn't castrate any current or future U.S. president.

This viewpoint from an American LIBERAL mirrors my view:

What does the world look like when people begin to doubt the credibility of U.S. power? Unfortunately, we’re finding that out in Syria and other nations where leaders have concluded they can defy a war-weary United States without paying a price.

Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit. It has become obvious in recent weeks that President Obama, whose restrained and realistic foreign policy I generally admire, needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. “red line.” Otherwise, the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve.

A second example of the dangerous opportunism that Obama has unintentionally fostered is that of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He’s a pugnacious former KGB officer who seems determined to take advantage of our reasonable, reticent president and the fatigued nation he represents. For a while, Putin’s chip on the shoulder was merely annoying. But inturning a blind eye to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, the Russian leader is undermining one of the precepts of the global political order.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-syria-us-credibility-is-at-stake/2013/08/28/54e8bc50-0ffd-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html

The US didn't act sooner because Congress was still in session. They had to wait for the summer recess before staging this little adventure.

Here is a bit of reading material on those that are pulling the strings.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-saudi-arabias-bandar-bin-sultan-puppetmaster-behind-syrian-war

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28694.htm

Edited August 29, 2013 by Loptr

[simple1]

No UK involvement until a vote in parliament, after complaints from opposition and rebel MPs

The U.S won't get much backing from Australia either at the moment with an election next week .

Australia (Bob Carr) has already announced support for US/NATO military intervention in Syria, even if not supported by the Russian/Chinese veto on the Security Council. It is claimed Australian miltary assets will not be deployed and Rudd has announced Syrian refugees would not be permitted entry to Australia.

Edited August 29, 2013 by simple1

[Credo]

I am in favor of a military strike. A few well placed ordinances that take out some military targets and send a message to all concerned that chemical weapons are a no-no. Maybe a palace or two? A few bridges or roads that slow the entire war effort down? Maybe an airstrip?

If Assad used chemical weapons, then part of his reasoning was probably to protect buildings and property. Make sure this motive doesn't work.

Military punishment, yes. Military involvement, no.

[Publicus]

No UK involvement until a vote in parliament, after complaints from opposition and rebel MPs

The U.S won't get much backing from Australia either at the moment with an election next week .

Australia (Bob Carr) has already announced support for US/NATO military intervention in Syria, even if not supported by the Russian/Chinese veto on the Security Council. It is claimed Australian miltary assets will not be deployed and Rudd has announced Syrian refugees would not be permitted entry to Australia.

Syria is a little out of the way of Australia's Department of Democracy way down over and far away from there.

Statements of support are about all that could or should be expected by others in the West.

Australia is playing its proper role.

Good for them.

[lannarebirth]

Well said jinseng,

Funny as hell, just today my good friend and next door neighbor came over and with utmost sincerity asked......

When the hell is the US going to put a stop to this......

Boggles my mind those that are such anti American, thinking we are flat out war mongers play both sides of the sword.

Good news is that I have personally met more than a few 70.ish guys that remember living in concentration camps in WW2 and the day American led allied forces liberated them. The stories are truly amazing and make me even more proud to state I am an American.

As for Syria, its a cluster f%%%. Remember though Libya, while half the world says why is US not doing anything. Other half ready to throw darts the day we do.

Obama, no saint, none are but in this administration, he asks for UN approval before digging in.

Ask yourself, all you countries that could not defend yourself from a swarm of wasps. Who the hell do you think is going to come to your aide if invaded. Yea,vi know it hurts but obviously there's only one answer.

I had to stop watching news on Syria. It sickens my stomach to know the suffering of civilians in this genocide. But. As one noted. The resistance fighting the government are not exactly led by choir boys.

Sooooooo. For you US bashers,grab a gun. I'll give you the GPS coordinates to drop in for a visit.........

F...grow up and put your gun(g) ho attitude away. Its the same American stupidity one saw when the invasion of Iraq was occurring watching the Enterprise bombardments being tagged with "for the Twin Towers". What the f...did Bin Ladens attack on New York have to do with Saddam's racial culling. For all America's much admired technical advances its biggest Achilles is its gungho stupidity and its righteous home grown and Jewish God freaks.

Suggestion would be for a change to let that the Brits who apply more logic than most to world events to take the lead as they are doing and the rest of in the west who are appalled by this Syrian chemical attack on their own people to support, and in America's case with its awesome fire power. Perhaps for once Americans then would not be the prime target of Arab counter aggression and the rest of us (the Chinese and Russian <deleted> aside) can equally share that load.

Except for your suggestion that the Brits have even one scintilla more sense, I would tend to agree with you.

[Publicus]

I am in favor of a military strike. A few well placed ordinances that take out some military targets and send a message to all concerned that chemical weapons are a no-no. Maybe a palace or two? A few bridges or roads that slow the entire war effort down? Maybe an airstrip?

If Assad used chemical weapons, then part of his reasoning was probably to protect buildings and property. Make sure this motive doesn't work.

Military punishment, yes. Military involvement, no.

Indeed.

20 Reasons Why Tomahawk Missiles Should Put Assad In A State Of Panic

Having seen 30 years of continuous service, Tomahawk missiles are one of the most reliable weapons on the battlefield.

The USS Barry and three other warships promptly took up positions off the coast of Syria, poised to unleash a storm of Tactical Tomahawk missiles.

While Syrian and Iranian officials have said they will defend themselves against any Western strike, their best defense seems to be appealing to the U.N. for time.

Nevertheless, it seems their time is quickly running out.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/tomahawks-assad-syria-strikes-2013-8?op=1#ixzz2dJaTVZhq

Bashar Al Assad's Brother May Have Ordered Last Week's Chemical Weapons Attack

The reported chemical weapons attack in Syria last week that killed more than 1,000 people and sent the Western world baring down on the conflict may have been ordered by the little brother to Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg cites an unnamed UN official who monitors armed conflicts in the region. The official said that the attack appears to have been a brash act by Maher rather than a strategic decision by the Bashar.

From Bloomberg:

The use of chemical weapons may have been a brash action by Maher al-Assad rather than a strategic decision by the president, according to the UN official, who asked not to be named.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/maher-al-assad-ordered-weapons-attack-2013-8#ixzz2dJbZN1f1

Edited August 29, 2013 by Publicus

[midas]

A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.

In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4422473,00.html

world war 3 in other words

Edited August 29, 2013 by midas

[Publicus]

A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.

In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4422473,00.html

world war 3 in other words

What's that Def Leppard CD?

Oh yeah, Hysteria.

[jmccarty]

What is the plan post Assad? In reading this http://world.time.com/2013/03/05/syrias-many-militias-inside-the-chaos-of-the-anti-assad-rebellion/ , if it is factual, dismantling Assad's government and leaving armed civilians with no formal military or beuracratic background means as a few have said, sharia law as the only organized system for the people to follow.

[1Ping1]

What's going in in Syria, regardless of this latest being factually correct, propoganda, or rebel staged. This past yr has been genocide. Sadly not only spot in world it is happening and we only have to look to the n or s of this country's borders to see suffering. While on a smaller scale. All around us.

Wars suck. Also, so many geo-political unknown agendas in this case its hard to tell up from down. Other than the fact civilians. Women and children are being killed every day.

Yea, the US has its handsin conflicts that I'm not clear on. Yes we always seem to. Having stated that, I'm still damn proud to be an American. No, not crazy about the American bashing but, I got broad shoulders. I can take it. Just last week an older gentleman came up to my wife and I at lunch. He asked if I was American, he then aske. Can he tell me a story and bought me a beer. He then went on to tell me that at the age of 5-7 he and his family were held in a concentration camp for three yrs, people starving, dieing every day. He then started crying and told of the 500 American tanks that took on 1,000 German tanks in a battle that lasted for days. He laughed when he told me how Americans would jump up and toss grenades into the German tanks, throw out the bodies and then use the tank against the enemy risking fire from their own troops until they started shooting the enemy tanks. His tears were flowing as he told of how his camp was freed and given first decent food in yrs. Yea, made me feel good.

There are also those that say the US has not won a war since. Will not even take sides on this as the definition of winning is a very grey line.

All I can add is this. Just this morning my neighbor cameover and asked, when is the US going to do something about Syria. Hell of a two sided coin I said. We are dammed if we do and dammed if we do not.

I think Obama is doing a good job of staying clear of wars. Libya is great example. He demanded UN approval and we then provided help without putting boots on the ground. Great job by all countries involved.

I can only speculate that the devil is in the unknown details in this ever since China and Russia both backed off in their stance on Syria. If not, why the UN is not taking action is beyond me. Notice I said the UN, not the US. Obama got it right in Libya. Doing the same, waiting for UN approval on Syria.

[midas]

A member of the Syrian Ba'ath national council Halef al-Muftah, until recently the Syrian propaganda minister's aide, said on Monday that Damascus views Israel as "behind the aggression and therefore it will come under fire" should Syria be attacked by the United States.

In an interview for the American radio station Sawa in Arabic, President Bashar Assad's fellow party member said: "We have strategic weapons and we can retaliate. Essentially, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4422473,00.html

world war 3 in other words

What's that Def Leppard CD?

Oh yeah, Hysteria.

What's that Hunter Hayes CD?

Oh yeah, Storm Warning.